Second Amendment Foundation: Manchin-Toomey Bill is a Win

Gun guys are up in arms about the Manchin-Toomey background check compromise bill. Cruising through YouTube land I found this clip of Second Amendment Foundation jefe Alan Gottlieb explaining the bill’s advantages and calling it a “Godsend.” Gottleib believes that supporting background checks is the moral position. Worryingly, he goes on to highlight people who “can hardly speak English” who buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check. “Goes on every day at every gun show . . . We can’t tolerate that. It’s not a sustainable position. We’re going to lose all our rights if we allow that to go on.” Realpolitik? Not my forte. But it is Alan’s.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

227 Responses to Second Amendment Foundation: Manchin-Toomey Bill is a Win

  1. avatarSkyler says:

    Can we trust no one?

    • avatarJake says:

      “We are all incrementalists now”

      • avatarStilicho says:

        Indeed. Useful idiots or traitors. There is no gray area here. So despicably eager to curry favor a trade a little freedom here, a little essential liberty there, just for the dubious honor of being praised and patted on the head by their leftist “friends.” GOA is the only organization still fighting. Curiously enough, I’ve never heard of either the CCRKBA or the SAF before. Are they leftist cover groups or just well meaning fools?

        • avatarJake says:

          I don’t know, I flipped my wig at first, then the Boston disaster put it to the back burner. But now that I think on it this could be a shrewd move. He could very well be getting the prohibitionists to shoot themselves in the foot by opposing this when it comes to debate/vote, as “compromise” means “I get everything and you get nothing”. Many will not even see the gains for the prohibitionists, only the tiny things they view as caving to the pro-rights crowd, and the plan will collapse like a flan in a cupboard. It could work, I would like to hear Alan explain it but I’m guessing if this is the goal we probably don’t want to clue in the people who hate having rights.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      Watch the video!

      Infringements: background checks required for gun show and internet purchases.

      2A protections: 15 year prison penalty for registration
      Still ok to transfer between family and (I believe) some private sales
      Protections for returning vets to restore gun rights
      An additional amendmendment to restore gun rights
      Additional recognition of current gun permits

      This looks like a good bill, and as of this moment, I totally agree with Mr. Gottlieb on this one. I am not a traitor, I am pro-freedom. Realistically, in an environment that we currently have with anti-gun Potus, VPotus, media, Feinstein, MAIG, this is the best thing that we reasonably have.

      Watch the video, see Mr. Gottlieb’s strategy on this one. Everyone can “shoot this down,” only to have it replaced by the other draconian bill which is far worse. Bloomberg will vilify Republican and pro-gun Dems as obstructionist and irresponsible. The media and low information voters will pass even worse measures. People, we are outnumbered by emotional and stupid voters. If the case were different, we would not have the current politics
      climate regarding firearms.

      We have nearly 4 more years of BHO and Michelle. They are media darlings, and have victim mentality speeches and events ready to go. I tell you what, losing a pawn doesn’t matter if you win the chess game. We need to play a little post Sandy Hook chess.

      • avatarSilver says:

        The 15 year sentence for registration is complete nonsense. Yeah, I’m sure we can count on the police to prosecute the police. There are already registries.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          True, but we still make gains with the bill, and suffer much less loss than with anything else on the table. If there is a better table to chose from, I’m all ears. And Gottlieb would be one of the people spearheading the effort to enforce the registration prohibition.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          I’m sorry, what gains do we make here Accur81? We lose the ability to do a significant portion of private sales and in exchange we get a “no registration law” that we already have and the government ignores, then we get a “mentally unstable soldiers are allowed to own guns”, which only applies to the very small portion of the small portion of the US population that kills for money.

          This bill is a loss all around with superficial “gains” to sell it to gun owners that don’t look too closely at it.

      • avatarJustin says:

        Absolutely do NOT support this bill! GOA has found many errors and outright assaults on our rights under this “deal”. This only gives them more of what they want and do you really think if we give them this that they will back off.? NO! It will only empower them. DO NOT GIVE IN! DO NOT GIVE UP ANY OF YOUR LIBERTY! FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS! I N!

      • avatarStilicho says:

        Sure, because THIS law will be used as a shield for 2A rights and not as a sword for destroying them through selective enforcement, etc. Is there a gun grab or cop cover-up you don’t favor in some fashion?

      • avatarJustin says:

        Under this new bill you will not be able travel through NY with a gun without being able to prove where you are coming from, going to, what you are doing when you get there, and that the guns in your car are in fact yours.

        • avatarRandy says:

          @Justin. Where does this bill say that you will have to prove where you are coming from and going to in NY or anywhere else? I didn’t see it in there, but I may not have read it as well as you did. I would definitely have a problem with that, so I’d like to be able to state where in the bill it is. Thanks.

      • avatarChris says:

        Sometimes things are not so complicated. Some would say that we are playing a chess game, when in reality we are playing a simple game of checkers. It’s a war of attrition, and sadly we are falling for it. Going along to get along, even if we actually do make gains, they too little to just look the other way.

        This is just like your defense attorney suggesting you take the plea bargain because you get to walk away with a reduced sentence, but without your dignity. I would rather take my chances, despite knowing full well that the jury has been played.

    • avatarMike Z says:

      Apparently not. Gotlieb is a traitor along with M. Toomey is now a RINO. Anyone who thinks this is a victory in the least doesn’t understand history, is not truly In our pro gun camp, and too easily sacrifices our rights in the name of appeasement.

      Unlike this bill the constitution is not vague about guns. “Shall not be infringed,” learn it and fight for it.

  2. avatarProfShadow says:

    @Skyler

    No…I’m thinking not.

  3. avatarShenandoah says:

    I hope all of the NRA bashers really light this guy up, because if WLP had said that I’m sure many would be calling for his head here.

  4. avatarTrevor says:

    Yeah, you can’t trust a guy that’s done more for gun rights in this country then just about any other person…please.

  5. avatarUSMCVeteran says:

    Just waitin’ for the hammer to drop. Lock and load!

  6. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    I think all sales go through an FFL here at a gun show, I could be wrong. Hopefully this part is a minor loss that can later be corrected. My philosphy is that there should be no checks of any kind. What happens if a nut case gets a gun? Bang, Randy

    • avatarBob says:

      “later corrected” ? Are you kidding me?

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Puzzle me this: what happens if a “nut case” gets a STEAMROLLER? What happens if a “nut case” gets a CHAIN SAW? A SLINGBLADE?! Some folks call it a KAISER BLADE… but I call it a slingblade.

      Legislating safety is about as useless as legislating morality; it’s WINDOW DRESSING. The kind that kills people.

  7. avatardwb says:

    I have to say I agree 100% with what he is saying. The NRA was for background checks before they were against it. He makes many excellent points, particularly about de-fanging Bloomberg on this issue.

    • avatarChainsawWieldingManiac says:

      Yep. While it’s going to inconvenience me, I definitely agree that there are some clear benefits to requiring a background check (or CCL, etc.) on every transaction. Makes it much harder for guns to accidentally transition to the black market, for one thing.

      • avatardwb says:

        Makes it much harder for guns to accidentally transition to the black market

        no it does not. On the other hand, It has never taken me more than 15 minutes (2/3 of which is usually filling out the form). If you give up something you know is worthless, at the cost of a very minor inconvenience, and get a whole lot in return, that’s a great trade. Plus, it gives you the moral high ground.

      • avatar16V says:

        “Legal” straw man makes purchase. Sells gun illegally to person not legally able to buy gun. Same as happens now.

        Unless “background check” comes with “universal transfer database”, how does this slow black market anything?

        The only thing universal bc will accomplish is ‘step one’ is complete and obviously ineffective. ‘Step two’ we now must register all guns and all transactions, because bloody shirt du jour.

        • avatardwb says:

          then let Bloomberg come out with an ad that pushes universal registration, see how that flies.

          Did you actually view the video? The bill has protections against a registry.

        • avatarProfessor says:

          Think people, universals background checks will be unenforcable without complete registration, as you need to know who has it now to know if a background check was done on the next transfer. Why is this point escaping the pro-gun crowd?

          As for accepting this now in hopes of repealing later? What planet do these people live on….

        • avatardwb says:

          “Why is this point escaping the pro-gun crowd?”

          its not escaping me. But doing nothing is not currently a viable option as it allows the left to paint them as “absolutists” and puts pro-gun reps in a worse position for 2014.

          Sometimes, in chess, you have to make a small sacrifice to gain a strategic advantage. I trust the SAF, they have hundreds of challenges in the pipeline, and Gottleib makes some excellent points why this provides some strategic advantage.

        • avatar16V says:

          dwb, I do agree that sometimes you fall back, regroup, and attack fresh.

          Here’s my quarrel, we’ve been falling back since the NFA in 1934. And GCA in 1968. And FOPA in 1986. When do we start the advance again?

          Bloomberg doesn’t have to advertise the steps he, or any other grabber, wants to take – they are the same steps that happen every time a government disarms it’s people.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          Yep. And your son is denied the right to inherit the Browning 9mm his grampaw left him, because… well, you know why a dog licks his balls, right?

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          @DWB

          We *already* have a law against a registry, which is routinely ignored. Why do you think adding a second law banning registration would somehow be enforced?

          We see every day that the government ignores laws that restrict the power of the government.

      • avatarSwobard says:

        There IS no “defanging” of Bloomberg while any gun remains in citizen’s hands. That’s a recurring (mis)belief among conservative politicians – that, “If we give them this one thing, they’ll be satisfied and leave us alone”. Wrong! They’re never satisfied.

        • avatardwb says:

          of course they will never be satisfied. But the vast majority of the country opposes the Bloomberg ban-everything agenda. By removing this one issue it forces him to campaign for more onerous issues, like registration and gun bans. Let him run ads for those see how far he gets.

      • avatarDavis Thompson says:

        I’ve never understood the “you need registration for background checks to work” argument. All a background check does is ensure the buyer is not a known criminal.

        The scary part of it is dealers having to keep the 4473s for 20 years. That could lead to future backdoor registration. The Manchin-Toomey bill makes it a felony to misuse these records, which is not the case now.

        I’m against expanded background checks, but this bill has a lot of advantages to it. Listen to what Gottlieb, one of the fiercest and most successful defenders of the 2A in history, actually says. Then go look at the bill itself. It’s not the sell out everyone thinks it is.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          Then you go live in THAT America. Freedom of choice. We don’t want to live in THAT America. Dissolution of the Union creeps ever closer, and it’s because of appeasers like you.

        • avatar16V says:

          We’ve been there for over a decade at least. Once a dealer retires or gets out of the business the ATF gets all those 4473s. They don’t shred them, or just box them up in an underground document warehouse. They get entered into a computer…

          I’m not sure what bill you read, but M-T has so many vagaries, that it’s guaranteed to be used against us in the very near future.

        • avatarDavis Thompson says:

          In order to get my handgun permit here in Westchester County, New York, I went through an 18 month, $400+ process involving scads of paperwork, fingerprints, background checks, letters from friends, training classes and so on.

          The process is not designed to make you a safer shooter, but instead to make you give up and just not bother. But I didn’t. I care so deeply about my 2A rights that I went through all the BS in order to secure my permit and buy my guns.

          A lot easier to be pro-2A when all you have to do is walk into a gunshop and pass a NICS check. Those of us who, for whatever reason (mine is economic and familial) remain in the deep blue states and keep fighting are just as worthy of respect as those of you who live in gun friendly states. Hell, maybe more because we have to do a lot more work and shell out a lot more dough to exercise our rights.

          If it was up to me, there’d be no background checks and we’d reset the laws back to where they were before the 1968 Gun Control Act. But it isn’t up to me.

          I’ve also written every senator with an NRA rating of B or higher on the issue multiple times now. I’ve been to three New York rallies and have donated every spare dime to GOA, NAGR and SAF. How about the rest of you? What have you done, besides post on TTAG and bitch about “appeasers?”

      • avatarBob says:

        I don’t think people realize how much the “inconvenience” is. Now you can only sell/buy a gun during gun store hours. Do you think the gun stores are going to jump to serve private sellers? No, they’re not.

        It takes about an hour to get a gun store clerk’s attention in my LGS. They close every day at five. I can’t sell or buy a gun during the week (lunch hour is not long enough), I have to do it on Saturday, the busiest day of the week for all gun stores.

        All this to make complete morons who refuse to think feel better.

        • avatarsp95 says:

          Bob,
          You are referring to Schumer’s bill, which is not going anywhere. In the Manchin-Toomey bill, the only thing that changes is that the very few sales at gun shows that dont already require BC’s will now require BC’s. A private citizen can still sell to another private citizen without a BC, just not at a gunshow.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Wrong, Bob. The Manchin-Toomey betrayal also makes all “internet sales” have to go through an FFL. It’s worded so vaguely that simply emailing a friend “Hey, want to buy my Gen 3 Glock 26 for $450?” without going to an FFL could get you a 10 year prison sentence. Certainly anything posted on forums for meeting up with another citizen of your state for in person sales / trades would be banned under it.

          A private citizen would only be allowed to sell to another private citizen as long as they didn’t meet at a gun show or have any communication online – thus making it very difficult to find a buyer without going through an FFL.

        • avatar16V says:

          Thanks for actually having reading comprehension Totenglocke.

          If you so much as send an email to a friend, you must go through a BC and and FFL.

      • avatarDavis Thompson says:

        Dear William, 16V and the rest,

        Yesterday I was for this bill. I’ve done a little more digging (though it was the Manchin, Toomey appearance on Meet the Press that really threw me. Manchin dragged out the “if we just save one life” cliche and I vomited all over my laptop) and have decided you were right and apologies are in order.

        I now oppose this bill and as penance, am spending some time today writing every single Senator with a B or higher NRA rating.

        Join me. Here’s a page with direct links to their e-mail contact form.

        http://www.shotmonster.com/senators.html

        • avatar16V says:

          Davis Thomas, Thanks for actually spending the time and brain power to read and understand the bill.

          Doing that is where the ‘rubber hits the road’ and all such.

    • avatarDaveL says:

      I’m not against background checks. I”m against all the stuff that comes riding along with background checks. Not just de-facto registration, but all the mechanisms that keeping background checks tied to FFLs introduces that allow the executive branch to ratchet up obstacles to lawful gun ownership without congressional oversight.

  8. avatarThomas Paine says:

    “i spent hours and hours w/ Manchin and Toomey going over what’s in the bill”. Wow, did they consult him before they presented it, or was he working at the bargaining table with them?

    Interesting, nonetheless.

    • avatardwb says:

      lobbyist lawyers write bills (The Brady campaign wrote the NY SAFE bill according to Cuomo). What he is saying is that SAF lawyers helped write the bill.

  9. avatar16V says:

    “Can hardly speak English”?

    Is he joking? Half of the native English speakers in this country can ‘hardly speak English’.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      english? We speak American here, thanks.

      • avatarMr Pierogie says:

        Yeah…why would I learn English?? I’m not going to England!

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          There is no such language as “American”. You can understand what Brits and Aussies say. You do that at the movies all the time. It’s the same language, no more different than Bostonian is from Mississippian.

          CUT THE CRAP.

    • avatarAnmut says:

      ^ this. Take a ride to any poverty stricken and government reliant geological location and try to have a proper conversation.

    • avatarcsmallo says:

      Code words for those evil mooslim terrurists under every bed.

      • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

        CS your posts are inflammatory insulting and you appear to be going off-topic in a way that defames this site and the reasonsble gun supporters here by association.

        I suspect you are a troll. Either the individual who needs attention or the sock-puppet variety. Please prove me wrong.

  10. avatarDave says:

    I had assumed that the NRA came out against the background checks only temporarily, so as not to have the battle lines moved to the magazines or “assault weapons”. In the last few days it became unclear whether that was the case. Given that, in my personal view, the background checks issue is not only not winnable but could really hurt if mishandled, I started worrying that they could make things worse. I am glad someone is finally dealing with reality as it is.

  11. avatarMatt says:

    If Biden likes it, its got to suck no?

  12. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    While I am a 2nd Amendment purist, I have to take what Alan Gottlieb says very seriously.

    And if the other side hasn’t “figured it out yet. they have now. The funny thing is, this bill will probably be shot down by liberals.

    • avatardwb says:

      I am sure that they will try to amend it but they are eager to pass something with “bipartisan support.” The senate is still very pro-gun, and last time reciprocal concealed carry came up it got 58 votes. No red state democrat is going to stick their neck out for 2014. I will await to see the final bill, but this seems like a decent starting bid.

      • avatarDavis Thompson says:

        I think the libs have also backed themselves into a corner. They’ve all been screaming for common sense compromise, so here is “common sense compromise.” If they suddenly oppose it, they become the obstructionists.

        You cannot deny Alan Gottlieb has pro 2A chops. His organization is responsible in part for both the Heller and McDonald victories. Decisions which may help see these stupid state AWBs overturned. Let’s not be too quick to hang him.

    • avatarPascal says:

      And if gets shot down, that is what we want because now we can say “anti-gun” crowd is against background checks. And if they vote for it, in red states that can be used against them to and beat them up for voting for it. Either way we win.

      I would also like to stop using liberal and use “anti-gun” because I had dinner last night with a self described “flaming liberal” who is amazingly pro-gun and thinks many of the laws are just plain stupid and will do nothing. With some education, some liberals could actual support our cause.

      • avatarDr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        I would trust a liberal libertarian over a conservative statist any day of the week.

      • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

        +1. I agree. Libtard is too easy and defames those of us who consider themselves liberal thinkers in the classical meaning of the term. This is a big tent here at TTAG. Lets stick to facts and reasoned debate. Thats rare enough on the innertubes and drives the progressive elitist neo-Marxist gun-fearing bible-hating Obamanoids crazy too.

        • avatarDavis Thompson says:

          Absolutely true. Go over to Breitbart and see the level of the commentary there. A bunch of kindergartners throwing rocks. TTAG readers tend to rise above.

          Tend…

      • avatarRickP says:

        The problem is that no liberal is going to give up his social and fiscal ideals “just to save his guns”. Sorry, nice try. To us, it’s about freedom, to them it’s just about guns.

        • avatarDr Duh says:

          WRONG…. It’s all about freedom.

          I’m a Vatican II liberal and a gun owner.

          And since Sandy Hook I’ve routinely written to all of the Red State Dems that if they betray us on the Second Amendment, I will contribute to their challengers and volunteer to their opponent’s phone banks, specifically identifying myself as a physician and fellow Democrat who needs this voter to cross party lines in order to preserve the Constitution.

          The BOR is about preserving freedom and distributing power. Liberals understand personal freedom and protection from state power. The key is changing the dynamic so that the question isn’t guns it’s freedom. So that weakening the Second Amendment is seen as part of a larger attack on the BOR.

          The other part of the equation is will conservatives stop supporting statist ‘law and order’ measures? Are they going to start aggressively defending the Fourth Amendment?

        • avatarint19h says:

          >> The problem is that no liberal is going to give up his social and fiscal ideals “just to save his guns”. Sorry, nice try. To us, it’s about freedom, to them it’s just about guns.

          To us, it’s about freedom, too. We just think that there are more rights and freedoms than the right to keep and bear arms. And, unfortunately, most politicians who support that right happen to have a dismal record when it comes to those other rights.

          It’s not even economic conservatism on the right that irks me most, it’s the social one. Low taxes and high taxes can be debated, but I’m never going to support an idiot who says that a woman’s body has natural defense mechanisms against pregnancy in case of “real rape”, or another idiot who says that you can’t get AIDS through heterosexual intercourse. Sorry.

          When Republican Party gets its head out of its ass and realizes that it’s not Middle Ages anymore, then hopefully we’ll see a slew of new pro-gun politicians who can actually reasonably be supported.

    • avatarsp95 says:

      That is why this is so perfect, they will have to vote for it, otherwise they now become the bad guy in the uninformed voter’s eye’s.

  13. avatarPascal says:

    @RF — I thought you would have a better read of the game being played and would be less critical.

    He is not wrong and he is thinking the long term. You are not going to win on absolute terms. This is a victory because the alternatives could be much much worse. Think beyond today.

    Too many people here do not think strategically. It is not an all or nothing game, we cannot win that way right now. Something will get passed because the political winds are blowing that way, you can be part of the solution, or be subjected to a much worse fate. You want to come in for the kill, there are 9 democrats that need to be voted out next year.

    Go ahead and flame all you want, I know what “shall not be infringed” means but you need to understand the politics and the game that is being played. In CT we are taught the long game and you cannot win every battle.

    The gun guys are being overly emotional without taking the long view or understanding how it is being played. He did not sell us out, he helped from being worse.

    What you should be fighting is for the amendments that Harry Reid wants to add are voted out and we want “just” the background check bill vote. Not sure how many people have read it, but it is far more of a win than a loss and I wish people would look at the fight and see that sometimes you have to beat parry before you can attack. You cannot fight on all fronts all the time. This makes the polls and Newtown parents go away.

    So, go ahead and flame away, but I understand where Alan Gottlieb is coming from and it makes a lot of sense. He is playing the cards before him and this is as good as it gets because congress will “do something” and then go away having done “something” that amounts “to nothing”.

    It is a victory although it may not look like one, it removes the debate because the Obama admin gets to make believe they have done something.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      something akin to “all men are created equal” and “if we want to get this Constitution thing accomplished, i guess you can have your slaves, but they only count as 3/5ths for representative counting purposes”.

      • avatarPascal says:

        Do you see the original Schumer bill? Have you seen the new bill? Please compare the two and tell me which you would rather have. Something was getting passed if you like it or not and you can spout whatever you like but it has not basis on the political reality of the situation. Dig in you heals all you want, see what you get. Spend some time testifying in from a Blue State set of legislators and tell me how far you get. This is a victory no matter what you may believe.

      • avatarBStacks says:

        3/5ths was a win for abolisionists

    • avatarracer88 says:

      Defeatist attitude. You DO realize that “universal” background checks means registration, RIGHT? There is no other way it could “work.”

      Not just “no.” But, HELL NO.

      • avatarPascal says:

        No, no it does not. Read the bill and tell me how it does that versus just spouting off.

        • avatarAnmut says:

          Because you CAN NOT ENFORCE UBC WITHOUT A LIST OF REGISTERED GUNS. Plain. Simple. Get it?

        • avatarracer88 says:

          So, you BELIEVE them, eh? Because the bill says it’s not registration… they won’t later realize that registration is requisite (and then justify a new bill to allow for that)??

          Yeah… I’m just “spouting off.”

          I will dig in my heels for the 2A, just as I will for the 1A, the 4A, and so on. There is no negotiation or compromise. Change the Constitution… but you shall not make laws infringing upon my Constitutional rights and usurping the Constitution. AMEND it. And, good luck with that.

        • avatar16V says:

          Pascal, There’s a well-traveled path to dis-arming a populace. Especially in recent history.

          The path starts with background checks. Which become a defacto registry. Which does nothing to impede crime. Which will prompt the next exploitation of tragedy to full registration. Then the next tragedy will inevitably be banning and confiscation.

          NFA ’34. GCA ’68. FOPA ’86. Always incrementally worse. Gathering mass and momentum.

        • avatarRobert M says:

          UBC doesn’t require registration. Just requires a the LAW to be clear and honest people will follow the law. Crocks wouldn’t any way that isn’t going to change. Granted the only concern I have is the cost of doing that check. Since there isn’t a set fee. FFL could set that really high. Just look at how high the cost in in DC for doing a simple xfer.

          Thanks
          Robert

        • avatar16V says:

          Robert, So you’re comfortable trusting a government that regularly violates it’s own laws about spying on it’s citizens, to all of a sudden start following them?

          There’s even more inter-agency nonsense today than ever before. With NSA’s Bluffdale complex coming on line in short order, even pretending that the FBI/CIA/SS and every other alphabet soup decides not to start writing those names down, it’ll all be on NSA harddrives, tagged to the number you call to get the UBC.

          ATF already has several registries going, not the least of which is the 300MM+ 4473s that have been turned in by retiring dealers since the program began in 1968 with GCA. They ain’t sittin’ in boxes, they are scanned and computerized.

      • avatarMike in CA says:

        You are making the mistake of assuming UBC as written in this amendment is effective or enforceable UBC. You are wrong. Gottlieb is asserting that not only is it ineffective, it punishes with a felony charge, the use of 4473 records to create a registry.

        • avatarRandy Drescher says:

          Who’s going to prosecute that felony? holder? they don’t prosecute now. They won’t prosecute the Aldi’s robber for armed robbery with a sawed off shotgun. Never going to happen, Randy

    • avatarColt Magnum says:

      Well written. Also, I agree that we need to be vigilant against amendments that the opposition will try to sneak by us.

    • avatarDave says:

      “This makes the polls and Newtown parents go away.”

      They may not go away. The anti-gun groups are coalescing and getting better organized. Their demonstrations may not attract huge crowds now, but they are held in many places, and that is nothing to sneeze at. The whole issue of gun control may yet become one of those “save the whales” types of causes célèbres that just keep churning for a number of years before getting supplanted by something else, escially with the President stoking the flames. So, I wouldn’t ascribe too many healing powers to Toomey-Manchin. And yet, one has to deal with political reality and save what one can and with luck even win something back. The alternatives are even worse.

      • avatarPascal says:

        That is not how politics works. They will get their sound bite and it is done. They have budget battles and Keystone pipeline and other items at the Federal level, as much as they like to play this game, they have other fish to fry in DC and this is as much a distraction as political theater. In two month they go on summer recess and things will blow over. Next year Bloomberg is gone and will not have the same spot light.

        • avatarDave says:

          I really hope you are right and I am wrong.

        • avatarAnon in CT says:

          They won’t just go away, but our lobbyists and pols will be able to point to a new bi-partisan law that was passed “in response to Newtown”, and the mushy middle will nod and move on to the next Sqirrel, I mean controversy. Gay marriage anyone?

          All that is assuming the final bill does not include ome sort of poison pill.

      • avatarNor'Easter says:

        Very good point Dave, there’s an extensive plan of ongoing demos all this summer – funded by Bloomberg – and until we can formulate similar actions we’re gonna keep losing. Save the Whales, Save the Rain Forests, Save the Children, that’s the pattern. We gotta Save the Gun Owners!

      • avatarDavis Thompson says:

        The real problem is Bloomberg. He’s almost out of office and has billions to spend on his new pet cause.

        • avatarDr Duh says:

          I have become a big believer in political trench fighting. Rebranding Al Gore as an EMO loser emasculated him, making Kerry out to be an elitist flip flopper took him out of the running.

          Cuomo and Bloomberg both deserve the same treatment.

          I make a point of referring to Cuomo as using “mafia style tactics” in arm twisting legislators, trying to enforce “omerta” among public employees… the meme is ‘bully’

          Bloomberg, is “Mayor Wall Street”, a “traitor who made his billions helping Wall Street banks bankrupt our nation”, “a man with legions of body guards, but knows you don’t need protection.”

          And, no, I have no shame. The gloves are off.

    • avatarHowdy says:

      There are too many areas where other laws are cited and changed without the actual text being included in this legislation. I doubt you have read those. I can’t even find them. Passing this as is without understanding what’s being changed elsewhere is wrong.
      Talk about unintended consequences.

      No means no. Not one step more. We haven’t done anything wrong. The choice of tools is being maligned. Not the monster who chose the targets.

      This isn’t about politics, it’s about rights. Rights need to survive regimes.

      • avatarRobert M says:

        I am assuming that a Lawyer as good as Alan Gottlieb has read those other laws and knows exactly how they are getting changed. This speech changed my view on the bill. We still have to worry about amendments but based on this video I went from an against to a supporter in one swoop.

        Thanks
        Robert

    • avatarNor'Easter says:

      Very good points Pascal, but I must confess I’ve been raked with indecision over how to feel about the latest Senate Gun Control Bill. While I’m generally opposed to any more controls this does have some good parts. Do they even come near to the damage it does? Let’s see….

      OK, the b/grd checks on employees may not be a bad idea but the real problem here is the extent to which these mental – health records can be used or (more importantly) misused. The record in NY with some poor innocent being cited for taking some pills is not good. This is the most disturbing part of this law and must be safe-guarded against abuse.

      Finally takes the non-existent “loophole” off the table. Temporary transfers should be better spelled out and more generous. The best part is the protection of gun owners from arrest and detention by fixing interstate travel laws for gun owners who are transporting legal firearms across state lines. Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now. Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.

      Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer. OK but limited. traps for the unwary. In addition it allows interstate handgun sales from dealers and Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.

      Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks

      Most importantly it adds a 15 year penalty for improper use or storage of records. This is very good and much needed.

      So what’s the bottom line? As per the above comments I think the penalties laid out for screwing around with a registry have been long needed as are the points about requiring actual malicious intent for technical violations – something I’ve been promoting for some time for all violations. It would also be useful to require all dealer records to be destroyed after 2 years or so and no more turnovers to the BATFE without them being required to destroy them after the same time. The “blacklist” should be operated by a 3rd party – not the govt – to remove temptation.

      With these modifications it may be somewhat palatable.

      It’s no use arguing that it’s not a good idea. I find it hard to name many gun laws that are good ideas, BUT the public is determined to “do something” and if stuff will be done then lets at least try to guide it along and come back with a jiu-jitsu move to our benefit.

      • avatarwrt81 says:

        Have you read the amendment? Some of what you said is incorrect. Specifically:

        Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks

        This is incorrect. Only family members are exempt. Friends and neighbors are NOT.

        • avatarSAS 2008 says:

          Friends and neighbors are exempt as long as you didn’t advertise the sale anywhere including the internet, newspaper or any other publication of the sale and the buy did not advertise his desire to purchase.

        • avatarNor'Easter says:

          Thanks SAS, you saved me the trouble. I hope this answers your concern wrt. Regards

    • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

      I agree. SAF has a history of proven strategic success in litigation. There is reason to compromise on UBC IF AND ONLY IF PRIVACY protections are hard-wired in and penalties apply for misuse.
      These protections are NOT in place now in CA and we have already seen abuse by ATF and CA DOJ and NY. So this could be both a sensible first step for identifying nuts like Lanza Holmes and Loughner while at the same time firewalling off Big Brother.

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      I’m with you. This is actually some pretty neat political ju-jitsu.

      Trouble is, we have to keep a very close eye on this as it goes through the Senate to make sure it’s not corrupted by the amendment process.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      All right! Let’s think ahead, shall we? Tomorrow, when the next “common sense” step in their war of attrition is proffered, be it outright registration or whatever… HEY! We’re “reasonable people”, RIGHT? Well, “reasonable people” – always being the anti-gunners, and not us – in this tomorrow have decided not only on “common sense” registration, but debarring war veterans from owning any guns whatsoever. Because their psyches are damaged, making them a potential danger.

      GO AHEAD, go along with that also. But don’t look around and expect to find me standing beside you. Because I haven’t been hypnotized by weasel words like “common sense” and “reasonable”; when one side is allowed to decide what is “reasonable” or “common sense”, the 800-pound gorilla in the room has woken up.

      • avatar16V says:

        We “compromised” on auto-guns and SBRs and SBSs and DDs in 1934.

        We “compromised” on serial numbers, mail-order sales, military surplus, licensing gun dealers, and all the attendant nonsense in 1968.

        We “compromised” again on auto-guns, and completely gave up on record-keeping in 1986.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      The long view is that the grabbers will do what they’ve done for 80 years – keep passing more and more “reasonable” restrictions and people like you will continually allow them thinking “See, if we just let them violate us a little more, they’ll be satisfied and stop” – yet it’s never true.

  14. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    I used to tell my salesmen that its better to get 100% of a crap deal then 0% of a fantastic deal. We are playing 3D chess. I am willing to read the final bill and see what is in it. Gottster has been true to the cause for 20 years. I aint running from him now.

  15. avatarLSUTigersFan says:

    Unfortunately, I think too many of us see this as the black/white issue as it is – shall not infringe. But, this is not an issue about guns or constitutional interpretation. It is a political fight pure and simple. Our normal personal philosophies – stand and fight, come and take it, not one step back – do not mesh well with the realities that the people voting in the Senate are politicians who thing only in terms of compromise. The problem is that most people think in terms of compromise. While we may be comforted by the fact that most people here think as we do, most people I know – of whom almost are gun owners – are not opposed to background checks. They are not in favor of them, but it is a concession they can live with rather than have this debate continue on until some other tragedy that will only put more at risk.

    But, the political reality is that Obama needs something to come out of the Senate with regards to gun control otherwise his anti-gun hawking highlights that the Senate is not always in step with the Dear Leader. Until he gets “something” to put on his resume relative to Sandy Hook, he will continue to focus on it. Background checks are not the way to go – and they will be abused – but, politically, doing nothing will only keep this is a hot political issue.

    And I will say, Alan Gottlieb, is a first-rate guy who has done more for guns rights in this country than anyone. So, I have to believe he knows of what he is talking when he says the bill is worthy of consideration. I don’t agree, mind you, but Alan knows more about big picture, gun issues than I.

    Well, I am off to the range to shoot…while I still can.

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      The other thing we have to consider is we need something to pass to get this off the front pages and the minds of Americans. There will be another high-profile mass shooting, they seem to happen about 6 months to a year apart. If that occurs while we’re in the middle of this debate, we’re screwed.

      I say pass this and move on. I’ve read the damned thing, the whole huge mess of it, and my gut says it’s a good deal. We get a lot out of it.

      • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

        Concur. As important as 2A is for many this is a fringe issue and We The People need to put the pressure on this admin and Congress to address jobs Obamacare and the budget. All massive fails by the dems and this admin and part of the reason they exploited the Newtown tragedy and the State Run Propaganda organs to take the eyes of the public off the ball…

  16. avatarRU1022 says:

    It would be nice to get something for giving in on universal, like elimination of waiting periods imposed by the states; protection of privacy of CCW’s or ???

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      We get a lot out of it. Such as being able to use a permit in place of a background check, buying handguns out of state, and making misuse of filed 4473s a felony.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        So they get the chocolates, and we get the foil wrappers! Thanks, man, I never saw it that way before…

      • avatar16V says:

        You do realize all those “filed” 4473s from dead, retired, or bankrupt dealers are now “archived” on an ATF computer,
        right?

        You think that when they push the “collate and alphabetize” button on that machine they will give two good flyin’s what the “law” is? Really?

        • avatarDavis Thompson says:

          Which is why the bill makes such malfeasance a felony.

          Look, this bill isn’t so hard to get around if you really want to. Meet a guy at a gunshow, and make arrangements to buy the gun from him a day later, or that evening, at his house or the parking lot of a local Dennys. Not on the Gunshow property, no background check needed.

        • avatar16V says:

          The history of gun legislation tells me how meaningless that “penalty” would be. Let alone the fact that the law never applies to the gov, unless it’s convenient.

          You do know that ATF will admit right now that they have at least 300MM 4473s collected since 1968?
          Who’s gonna go audit them and prove it isn’t a database, you and your army of Federal Prosecutors?

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        So in other words, we get nothing. Thanks, sellouts.

        • avatarDavis Thompson says:

          Hey, Totenglocke,

          I am here to say you were right and I was wrong. I saw the Manchin-Toomey Meet the Press appearance and it spooked me. Add in a re-read of the entire bill and a look at two excellent dissections of it (below) and I’ve been convinced this bill is a potential disaster.

          Today I will write every senator with an NRA rating of B or higher to register my opposition.

          If anyone wishes to join me, here’s a page with direct links to their email contact forms.

          http://www.shotmonster.com/senators.html

  17. avatarTim says:

    I’ll say it…. bombshell on the NRA, but yet gun owners still come out ahead. The heads of NRA fan boys all over the country are exploding right now.

    • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

      Lets take it a step further and hope that SAG and NRA are teaming up strategically…Where Mr WLP does well behind the scenes but not in front of camera SAF can take the lead- Mr Pratt did a fine job on CNN. Rare to see Wolf Blitzer get so rattled and FAIL on air. Kudos to Mr. Gottlieb for this latest.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        Dunno about teaming up. The NRA and SAF have been at odds over the proper strategy in the courts for years.

  18. avatarDon says:

    Sounds like a good deal to me. I’m inclined to trust one of the best gun rights advocates of the past 2 decades. There where a lot of things in there that benefit me, and I think the legal protections on existing background check data is an important foundation to start laying this day and age.

    • Agreed, this is a man that has fought tooth and nail for gun rights for 20+ years… I have to at the minimum give him the benefit of doubt. I travel interstate all the time, we still have family behind enemy lines in IL. This would protect me and mine in our travels.

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      The bill also includes a provision to set up a committee to study the root causes of mass shootings, you know, things other than the gun the killer used. That could help put the attention where it should be. Why these guys are killing people as opposed to what hardware they’re using.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Well then… haven’t a HUGE number of measures that seemed A-OK in the past proven to be ANYTHING BUT? What makes THIS gun control measure “good control”, and others “bad control”? I think some of you had better reduce your fluoride intake. (Look it up – the Nazis pioneered the use of it in the death camps to reduce intelligence and will to resist).

      Gun Control isn’t about guns; IT’S ABOUT CONTROL. I’m pleased you found some that seems palatable to you, maybe even praiseworthy.

      When you’re on here later bemoaning the next measure (which is invisibly linked to this one, whether you can see it or not), some of us will remember who you are and what you supported.

      Expect to be called out on it.

      • avatarfoggy says:

        Wow, I’ve finally figured out who you really are, General Jack D. Ripper. “Purity of Essence- They are using flouride to sap our precious bodily fluids.”

  19. avatarjwm says:

    I’m inclined to trust the SAF. At least in this early stage of the process.

  20. avatarracer88 says:

    Just sent this to the SAF:

    Did I hear right? Gottlieb is in favor of the Manchin-Toomey background check compromise bill??

    If that’s the case, you can cancel my lifetime membership in the SAF.

    Are you ****ing kidding me?? I feel like a fool for joining as a lifetime member.

    • avatarSkyler says:

      My thoughts exactly.

    • avatarPascal says:

      Stop supporting SAF, NRA and GAO and that solves what? Are you going to go court for us? Are you going in front of SCOTUS? Typing here on the forums will not move the forward.

      I do not see how you action helps in the fight in anyway.

      HOW ARE YOU going to make a difference in this fight?

      You call me names all day long, but tell me how what you have done will help the fight?

      • avatarHowdy says:

        It’s fine to say HOW ARE YOU…? Fortunately, your trust in this does not decide the outcome. There are too many gotchas and too many areas that are vague that will be later used to beat gun owners over the head.

        Will you guarantee this bill is not a stepping stone to more onerous legislation? How so? Will you keep the gun ban amendments from every piece of legislation, including this one, from being passed? You and Gottlieb need to go back over this legislation and understand the devil in the details.

        Yes, there are some shiny bits of concessions, but you have to think about how antis are going to use this in the next massacre, gun or no gun. That’s right, how are the antis going to pass laws that are not specific to guns that gets around this legislation. I don’t care who helped write this. You let your guard down without fully understanding what is being proposed and how it’s going to be used against those in favor of their rights.

      • avatarcsmallo says:

        GOA is supporting this?

        Doesn’t read that way to me.

        http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm

        Doesn’t look like Larry Pratt is for it either.

        http://www.conservativehq.com/article/12996-goa%E2%80%99s-larry-pratt-gets-it-right-senate-gun-bill

      • avatarracer88 says:

        I’ve called you names, Pascal???? Ummmm… where?

        That said… you have no idea what I’ve done (or not) to make a difference in this fight. I’ll just say this: I AM ACTIVE. I will not say more than that, as I prefer to remain anonymous on these forums.

        But, I am VERY disappointed with Gottlieb at this point.

      • avatarDavis Thompson says:

        SAF has done more than ANY OF US to fight for gun rights. Please don’t throw them under the bus so quickly. After all, they helped give us Heller and McDonald, the two most important 2A victories of the modern era.

        • avatarracer88 says:

          Consider that the bill (as stated, even by Gottlieb) would regulate any private transaction that ORIGINATES from the internet… as in Buy / Sell / Trade forums online. So, that would be the end of that.

          I’ve watched the video. He makes it sound like we win a lot of concessions. Put simply… I don’t believe him…. or them.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        And how are they making a difference by getting state gun control laws overturned while promoting Federal gun control laws?

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Congratulations, racer88. You’re a fool no longer. Excellent. Those who are okay with negotiating rights can have this country; let us start another one. Stay away from it; it appears this compromise crap is highly communicable.

  21. avatarMike in NC says:

    I read the headline and RF’s write-up and was ready to try to do a stop-payment on the last check to SAF… Then I watched the video and changed my mind.

    While I am very close to a 2A absolutist (only ok to restrict violent felons and violent mentally ill WHILE incarcerated / institutionalized) and would love to see a whole bunch of statutes repealed, we will not see that happen with this progressive President, Senate and press corps.

    • avatarHowdy says:

      Please everybody,
      Check out the other sites and discussions about how the specific language of the law may be used against veterans. There are many other points that are discussed. I urge you to check them out.

      • avatar16V says:

        I’ve been trying to get people to actually read this pile of dung.

        If you understand how the government uses vagaries in laws to their advantage, you’ll understand why most who have actually read it, hate M-T.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        Thanks, you “get” it; I’m rather distressed at how many here can’t. Or won’t.

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      I’m with you. I’m going right over there to JOIN!

  22. avatarstateisevil says:

    The bill expands where “background checks” are necessary. Slaves ask permission before keeping and bearing arms. This is not progress.

    • avatarSilver says:

      +1

      Sad how many people on here are excited and satisfied by the softness of the master’s whip on their backs.

  23. avatarPro-Liberty says:

    We need to stop using the inaccurate term “background checks.” This is not about a “background check requirement.” If I go down to the local sherrif and pay for a background check on someone I’m thinking of selling a gun to, that wouldn’t be good enough for these gun control people. They want there to be an official government form that gets filled out memorializing the transaction and making clear that it is a firearms transaction.

    So-called “background checks” are about every single person who wants a gun having to get permission ex ante from the government.

    If a pro-gun legislator wanted to push this, he could file an amendment to this bill that authorizes private background checks as a substitute for an FBI NICS check. It would die a firey death, precisely because this is about government control of guns and gun owners, not about making people safe through background checks that are actually effective.

    [And for what it is worth, I am a state bureaucrat who works on draft legislation and draft regulations every single day at my job. I don't care what excuses people want to give to their favorite compromisers, it is pure stuff and nonsense. People who are willing to compromise on other people's liberty because they don't want to harm their relationships with other legislators or other lobbyists should all be seen for exactly what they are: people who are putting dollars in their pockets at the expense of their constituent's or client's principles. This is about them preserving their stations in life, not about their having some kind of special wisdom about the process.]

    • avatarPascal says:

      Don’t we have background checks today? HOW is what is being proposed different?

      So, what you are telling me, is that you have never done anything to compromise with anyone across the isle in such a way that you may have to give up a little to get a lot and you can write legislation such that is “pure” absolutism and you have always gotten 100% of what you have wanted?

      • avatarcsmallo says:

        I have never even compromised across the aisle. I never compromise on principle.

      • avatarPro-Liberty says:

        No, universal (or near-universal) background checks are not required by federal law. FFLs have to conduct NICS checks, but there are many, many legal firearms transfers that are conducted privately and that are facilitated by online classified ads, chance meetings at gun shows, etc. These are not currently subject to a background check requirement at the federal level (state law obviously varies widely, though most states do not prohibit non-FFL transfers or subject them to background checks).

        And standing on principle isn’t about getting 100% of what you want. It is about not being complicit in doing evil.

    • avatarRalph says:

      If a pro-gun legislator wanted to push this, he could file an amendment to this bill that authorizes private background checks as a substitute for an FBI NICS check.

      Yes, exactly. NICS was designed as an open system that would permit private sellers to check their buyers. In the end this was not permitted because private sellers could not be forced to retain records.

      It was never about the checks. It was and still is about the records.

      • avatarracer88 says:

        There ya go! Bingo!

      • avatarbill says:

        It IS about the records.

        So checks (will be able to-) take place but there will never ever be a registry?

        States will never hand CCW records to DHS. Ever. Right-

        This is the first step to de-facto registration and you’ll be a felon if the Gov’t decides chain-of-custody for a weapon makes you ultimately liable (several transactions back-) for somebody elses actions.

      • avatar16V says:

        Exactly. The scary part is how many records ATF already has…

        By their own admission they have around 4 million 3310s (multiple sales to individual). About half a million in the stolen database, and at least 300 million 4473s since all this “dealer” nonsense got started with another ‘reasonable compromise for the children” in 1968.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Impressive; I greatly appreciate the insight.

      To those of you so eager to sell our rights down the river: STAY THE HELL OFF OUR RIVER.

  24. avatarDave says:

    Sometimes I ask myself what kind of gun laws this country will have in 25 years. No one knows, of course, but with the decline of many rural counties and the growth of suburbs and cities it would seem that they will likely be more stringent than they are today. It wouldn’t surprise me if there is a requirement by then for all States to require an FOID of some kind to buy and own guns and ammunition. In some sense, the current bills giving preferential treatment to CCW permit holders for some transactions is a step in that direction, except for it being a choice rather than a requrement right now. Whether all guns, or certain types of guns, will be registered by then is less clear, but at last some types of firearms may well be all registered by then (or at least required to be registered).

    It sounds most unappealing, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Would that be a disaster? Well, yes, but how big a disaster? The disaster scale one might use is this: (a) are the permits of whatever kind one would need to buy, to own, to carry, etc., of the “shall issue” kind or “may issue” kind, (b) are the bureaucratic procedures convoluted enough and the cost high enough to make getting a permit impractical for many people.

    I hope things are better than that by then, but you never know. There is certainly much that will happen in the next 25 years.

    • avatarRalph says:

      The real question is what kind of country will we have in 25 years. My personal point of view is that the country will suck.

      • avatarDave says:

        Oh, that. We won’t have to wait 25 years for that. We are pretty much there already – gun laws lag behind the rest only because of how ingrained they have been in American culture.

      • avatarRKflorida says:

        You are an optimistic person. I would say 10 years.

  25. avatarMatt says:

    The Manchin – Toomey bill is a HUGE win for gun owners, you guys really need to take a step back and appreciate the long game here. The bill only addresses the fictional “40% of guns are sold without background checks” non-problem that the president and others have been pushing. Serves them right for basing their arguments on a lie – now the only law they can pass basically preserves the status quo.

    The reason this bill is such a win for gun owners is because it allows the gun grabbers to declare victory when in fact very little will have changed. The gun grabbers can pat themselves on the back all they want and say that they passed the biggest gun law in 20 years, and you can bet they won’t try for another AWB for at least another 10 years.

    The more that we responsible gun owners can demonstrate that we have nothing to hide and can differentiate ourselves from criminal gun users in the eyes of the law, the more effective we will be at persuading moderates that the IRKBA is a good thing and a fundamental aspect of our society. This bill allows us to play along nicely and keep our toys. This is a huge win and it’s truly puzzling that you can’t see that. Try to take a step back and grasp the bigger picture here.

    • avatarLKB says:

      I’ve not yet had the chance to read the actual Manchin-Toomey deal to verify this, but if Fox News is accurate then perhaps Gotlieb’s position should be considered:

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/manchin-toomey-deal-could-allow-gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/?test=latestnews

      Does anyone really think that Shumer, Feinstein, et al., are actually going to go along with a deal that allows, for example, those of us with Texas CHL’s to legally carry in Chicago, Los Angeles, NYC, Boston, etc., with explicit federal preemption of state and local laws to the contrary? And if they don’t, then they’re responsible for scuttling the “bipartisan” approach.

      Methinks Toomey may well have played the other side masterfully. Time will tell . . . .

    • I tend to agree… give them something that wasn’t really an issue in the first place so they can say they “done something” at the same time we take the wind out of their sails AND get some rights back. I could see this ending up a win.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      “Looking at the long game” is EXACTLY what we’re doing. Look in a different direction to see what you can’t see now; or WON’T.

      EVERY single “compromise” (euphemism for “see things our way”) has led us to this singular moment. What will THIS lead to? NOT the Happy Hunting Ground, I’ll tell ya.

    • avatarSilver says:

      Status quo nothing. Some people buy privately specifically to own guns the government has no record of because they’re decently smart people who recognize the inevitability of confiscation and tyranny.

      A UBC like this totally eliminates that.

  26. avatarUSMCVeteran says:

    We can discuss the why and the what ever but the bottom line is that Fedzilla wants to take our gun.

  27. avatarSubZ says:

    While their bill may not be onerous, it will not go thru the process w/o changes.

  28. @LKB

    This is kind of what I am thinking… I have read the bill, there is nothing in there that to me looks bad… I am not a big fan of background checks, however if we get some rights in return for going along with this… I could see this being a pretty big win for us.

  29. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    Folks, Tom Gresham will have Alan Gottlieb on his radio show Guntalk today. Check your radio listings or the internet to give it a listen.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      I had to look up “mook”. It’s not the kind of word that belongs here, methinks. It borders on racist.

  30. avatarFug says:

    Illiterate mooks shop at gun stores too, short stuff, and they make purchases with background checks. Those checks don’t look for stupidity but a record of criminality.

    He is 100% wrong about supporting this or losing all our rights. I explained to my liberal mother what universal background checks really meant yesterday and she was shocked. Shocked that you could have to background check someone you have known for years, that you couldn’t inherit guns, etc. Nobody really knows this stuff, they just know it sounds “safe.”

    Is this what Democracy is really all about? The tyranny of ignorance? I am seriously questioning what side Alan is really on. His position does not make sense, we are negotiating from a position of constitutional strength while the enemy is relying on yellow propaganda and trying to intimidate us with loaded opinion polls. It seems this leftist strategy is working on some.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      We need to throw the guy overboard. He’s SINKING THE BOAT.

    • avatarDavis Thompson says:

      The bill only applies to sales at gun shows or of weapons advertised on the Internet or in a publication. You can still sell a gun to a friend without a check. You can still pass a gun down to a family member without a check.

      There does need to be clarification on what a “publication” is. Does an email to friends count? What about a posting on a gun club bulletin board? or a Facebook post?

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Well, it’s certainly what “Democracy” is all about: 50% plus one single person. Which is why the Founding Fathers were so much against it, and established our nation as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, and not a tyranny of the majority.

  31. avatarWilliam Burke says:

    We’re going to “lose our rights” if we let pricks like Gottlieb speak “for” us. He DOES NOT speak for us, and the media should understand that these turncoats they feature as pro-2A “spokespersons” DO. NOT. SPEAK. FOR. US.

    PERIOD. Who’s got tar? I’ll bring feathers. Also we need a fire guy.

  32. avatarJC says:

    Based on this article, this bill might truly be a net win. We who believe in the RKBA have been lobbying for nationwide concealed carry license reciprocity for quite some time and this bill appears to offer that. I think universal background checks, with protections against it turning into a registry, are insignificant if reciprocity comes along with it.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/manchin-toomey-deal-could-allow-gun-owners-seller-to-carry-sell-across-state/?test=latestnews

    • avatarRalph says:

      It’s not reciprocity, it’s peaceable journey. We were supposed to get that in FOPA, but that law has proven to be a death trap for the unwary.

      • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

        Thanks Ralph I am listening carefully to your cautions. On the one hand I see an opportunity to craft protections proactively but on the other I see the mockery of the original intent in Executive abuse for example in F&F and DOJ documented abuse of civil rights law in DOJ hiring and selective prosecution. The key seems to be getting good law then fighting for its application in the courts. The tide appears to be turning with Heller etc but I depend on your read for context and reading the sea.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      The prosecutions of those who would misuse the records would come fast & furiously…or maybe not. This part is laughable, Randy

  33. avatarracer88 says:

    Consider that the bill (as stated, even by Gottlieb) would regulate any private transaction that ORIGINATES from the internet… as in Buy / Sell / Trade forums online. So, that would be the end of that.

    I’ve watched the video. He makes it sound like we win a lot of concessions. Put simply… I don’t believe him…. or them.

  34. avatarRalph says:

    Noncommercial sales are exempt. Intrafamily transfers are exempt. The “peaceable journey” provision of FOPA is extended to include overnight stays and pit stops, things that are currently illegal and get people arrested to the great glee of New York and New Jersey authorities. Recordkeeping is highly limited. Gun registries remain banned. The Senate goes on record as recognizing the RKBA.

    There are a lot of good things in this proposal. We have not been sold out by the SAF, nor by the NRA A-Raters. Not yet, anyway. We’ll see if and how this bill gets through the Senate.

    • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

      Yup. Thats the bottom-line. Wait until this comes out the back end of the sausage factory…

    • avatarwrt81 says:

      Can you define “noncommercial sales”? According to the text of the amendment, any sale that originates due to an internet posting or publication must go through a background check. So, even a posting on a local forum about a gun for sale must be covered.

  35. avatarSammy says:

    Needless to say, I have not read this bill either. But of all the players involved I have the greatest respect and faith in the SAF. I back that up with checks. If we have lost the SAF which I do not believe we have, we are forked anyway. There was never an Internet loophole as far as I can tell. If a gun must be shipped to an FFL he or she won’t let the gun leave their store without a properly completed NICS form, so where’s the “Loophole”??? I see no purpose in trying to prove identity over the net (iffy at best) before shipping.

    • avatarRightontheleftcoast says:

      Concur. I expect to be flamed for yhis but I’ve had no problem buying from a friend via background check at LGS here in CA and business at gunshows is booming with same requirement. I’d like to see national CCW standardized too as my local sheriff only gives out to the insiders thanks to politicians but thats being slowly fixed here county by county by SAF and Calguns and NRA lawyers. So this may be the opportunity to turn the energy of hun-grabbers around and make better law. Call it gunfu by the legal beagles…

      • avatarSammy says:

        “So this may be the opportunity to turn the energy of hun-grabbers ”

        Now their after our wives?? Hmmmmmmmm, In my situation, good luck, the woman is uncontrollable. :)

  36. avatarBill R. says:

    Definitely a win-win for gun owners.

    • avatarMike Z says:

      Wrong. I am an 03 C&R. I do my ordering of approved guns via online vendors and forum sales on C&R forums. I had to pass various ATF checks and keep an ATF sanctioned bound book. Yet, this bill now requires me to get more checks? Most online sales have to go through an ffl. “Advertised” online guns not being exempt merely isolates gun buyers to buying what’s in stock locally, which may not be what they want.

      Those and veteran restrictions are just some of what makes this garbage. Read the bill and pay attention to vagueness in terminology.

  37. avatarGideon says:

    I had been against this bill and emailed my Senators and Representatives and let them know I was against it. Now, however, I have changed my position. Knowing that the 2nd Amendment Foundation was instrumental in writing this bill gives me hope. I trust Mr. Gotlieb and if he says this is a good bill and something we should support I will do it. For this to work in our favor we have to make sure there is enough pro-gun amendments to work but I see how this could be a very good thing. Maybe this is how we get national carry reciprocity. I am writing my Reps to let them know I support this.

  38. avatarTom Gresham says:

    Alan is about to go on my radio show to explain. Find stations and online streaming at http://www.guntalk.com/listen. Starts at 1:06pm Central time. In 3 minutes.

  39. avatarShaky Dave says:

    The sole reason we haven’t had confiscation already is because the government can’t locate enough guns to get it done in a very short time frame. All you guys who have no objection in principle to Manchin – Toomey because it prohibits building a registry might want to look at what recently happened in Missouri, in violation of state and federal law prohibiting the release of information. And also remember that information is like gas in a container – when it escapes your control you can’t get it back. If the data base CAN be created, it WILL be created.

    And you might also ponder the fact that these ‘outrageous loopholes’ the bill is closing were, when the current legislation was enacted, agreed to by both sides as ‘reasonable compromise.’ We have always been opposed by a determined and fanatical bunch who understand incremental progress; every one of us they peel away from the fold is a step toward their total disarmament goal. The only way to preserve the Second Amendment is to defeat ANY new proposals this time around, and discourage them for a decade or, hopefully, a generation.

    • avatarSAS 2008 says:

      Agreed in that the original private sales exception was intentional and a concession to the pro-gun side. Now it is a “loophole” that must be closed. How long will it be before the exceptions in this bill become “loopholes” that must be closed? What will be the next concession when the next Sandy Hook happens and we must do “something” one more time.

      I have read the bill at least 3 times, some sections more. The bill is not bad but it does give up some while trying to protect in other ways. I wish I had a crystal ball to see the net effect but I am seriously concerned that in the long run we will be pushed to lose any gains made by this bill.

  40. avatarSilver says:

    1. All you celebrating over the ban on a registry…can you possibly be that naive? Can you really possibly be so dense as to believe any authority figure will ever arrest any other authority figure over keeping a registry? It’s a hollow line designed to appeal to the simple-minded who don’t understand that registries already exist and will always exist because the corrupt are policing the corrupt.

    2. Incrementalism once again. Good for you for celebrating the fact that the chains we’ll receive aren’t as heavy as we thought they’d be. But chains nonetheless. But hey, I’m sure the antis will be satisfied with this and will never go after guns again…right?

    3. Seriously, the “long game”? Can anyone here be so stupid as to think the gun-grabbers don’t have complete control over the long game? When all this is said and done, they will have placed more infringements and the gullible gun owners will think they won something with empty gestures. And do you really think this all won’t come up again during the next mass shooting? And there will inevitably be one; the government will see to it if it doesn’t happen naturally.

    I wonder where this country would be – or if it would be at all – if the men at Lexington and Concord said, “Let them take our powder, guys. We’ll fight them in courts and write our reps and win the long game.”

    Pathetic. Never thought so many weak-kneed compromisers had come to TTAG.

    Be sure to hold a candlelight vigil for the disarmed subjects who die at the hands of criminals while we take our time futilely trying to win the long game.

    • avatarracer88 says:

      Right on. The ones playing the “long game” (boil the frog slowly) are the gun-grabbing, anti-liberty traitors.

      Thanks to Gottlieb, these traitors can claim, “The SAF approves of gun control.”

    • avatar16V says:

      They’ve been playing the ‘long game’ since 1934. I’m only in my 40s, I do so hope we can make our big play before I’m 100.

      Some will fall for anything….

  41. avatarDr. Michael S. Brown says:

    I say: Take that, you fiendish gun grabbers!

    I’m with Gottlieb on this one. I’ve met him and he is a very smart guy who loves guns as much as anyone here. His credentials in the fight are more impressive than anyone else I can think of.

    Some of us have been so beaten down by the enemy that we can’t see a victory, albeit a modest one, when it is staring us in the face. Wait and see what happens when the old media gets wind of this tomorrow. I can’t wait to see what the grabbers do.

    And remember, we still have the House of Reps which is much more pro-gun than the Senate. Gottlieb calls it a backstop and I think that’s a good term. Listen to the Gun Talk segment he did today. You may have to find a podcast but its worth the trouble.

    • avatarDr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Here’s hoping constitutional carry gets amended in the house version…

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Right, because banning private sales and putting in “feel good” bits about no registration is really a “victory”.

  42. avatarRed Dawn says:

    This idiot (Alan Gottlieb) is dead wrong. I purchased one of my 9mm at a gun show and I had to have a permit from the county sheriff In order to get a permit they have to run a background check on you. They want to be able to keep guns out of the hands of crooks and the mentally disturbed. Does anyone on here know a crook or a mentally disturbed person that has applied for a permit or background check?

  43. avatargeoffb says:

    The Heritage Foundation has an answer to Mr. Gottlieb.

    “But then, the STM bill takes those protections away by using the all-powerful word “notwithstanding”—”notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.” The courts may construe the “notwithstanding” to allow Attorney General Eric Holder to issue regulations that could begin to create a federal registry of firearms, because the law says he can implement the subsection without regard to the protections against a registry elsewhere in the legislation.

    The courts view the word “notwithstanding” as very powerful. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in 1989 in Crowley Caribbean Transport v. U.S. in reference to the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter” that “a clearer statement of intent is difficult to imagine” to push aside other laws.”

  44. Gottlieb notes that all sides are `stuck` because they took such absolute positions right off the bat. Frankly – if the NRA still opposed this publicly but let politicians slide privately, it would be a good move.

    The NRA could save face on their intractable verbiage early and take credit for the wins afterward without seeming (as) duplicitous.

    What a bloody mucked up mess though… -Pk

    • avatarMike in NC says:

      The NRA could save face on their intractable verbiage early

      There is a reason that the NRA only has 4-point-something million members in a country with 80 to 100 million or more firearms owners and it is not due to “intractable verbiage”. They have a history of doing exactly what you suggest and are far too experienced playing the role of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. (Apologies to any actual monkeys who may be offended by this comparison.)

  45. avatarg says:

    Monday is going to be interesting…

  46. avatarLance says:

    Well I cant hate the guy but giving a inch to antigunners makes it worse a few years from now because they started the foundation of a registry and try to make Schumers bill law is step 2. But this bill is by no means a threat like the hag’s AWB bill.

  47. avatarnature223 says:

    are…you…out…of ..your …FREAKING…MINDS?!?!?!
    hell nooOOOOOOoooo

    any bit of this bill isnt good and should be knocked into obscurity..
    and the authors removed from office, under force and duress.

  48. avatarimp1295 says:

    I just read the entire 49 page bill. It is a winner if you ask me. The exemptions and rights that it affords are actually wins for RKBA.

    my .02 cents

  49. avatarMark Davis says:

    The proposed legislation looks like a win to me. I’ve watched the video and read the fox news article. If these sources are to be believed, the proposed legislation will EXPAND our rights, not decrease them. I’m cautiously optimistic. Or hopefully skeptical, if you get my drift.

  50. BULLSHIT !!!!

    No Compromise !!!

    Also Gura is not a big fan of AK’s and AR’s. He is not in favor of standard 30 rd mags.

    Gura is purely pushing the self defense from thugs… not govt tyranny.

    SAF is going to weaken the NRA No Compromise Position.

  51. avatarJeff G says:

    But the bill waives HIPAA and allows them to include your medical records. If you took anxiety medication will you be prohibited?

  52. avatarMWorrell says:

    The only people who will attempt a purchase with a background check are those who can pass one. In Illinois, we must have a state issued FOID card in order to buy ANY firearm or ammo, including online. Any transfer of ownership can ONLY take place between FOID card holders, period. We have a 3 day waiting period. We have no concealed carry. What does all this accomplish to stop gun deaths and keep guns out of criminals hands? Read the Chicago Tribune and see for yourself.

  53. avatarMary Brown says:

    “(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, except for section 923(m), the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

    Eric Holder can write in any damn thing he pleases so this bill is total crap.

  54. Lol the video has been deleted, YOU KILLED IT!!!

  55. avatarmediocrates says:

    it doesn’t matter if everyone agrees that expanding background checks to private sales at gun shows is a good idea. The Federal government doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to insert itself into the sale of used goods between two individuals within the borders of the same state. period.

  56. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    Dear TTAG community,

    Yesterday I had my John Kerry moment, that is I was against the Manchin-Toomey compromise before I was for it. Now I’m against it again. What tipped me? First, I saw their joint appearance on Meet the Press. Very suspicious. Like two weasels at a waffle festival. When Manchin trotted out the “if we can just save one life” cliche I nearly vomited on my laptop.

    Looked into it some more, and with a great link provided by TTAG reader Michael B, I found these two excellent dissections of the bill:

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/

    http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm

    The first is written by Dave Kopel. While I respect the hell out of Alan Gottlieb, I respect Kopel more. And the points he makes are excellent. This bill may have been well-intentioned, but it’s poorly written and the potential for unintended consequences is terrifying.

    So to all you “purists” and “extremists” and “my way or the highway” types, I’m sorry. You were right. I was wrong.

    For penance, I’m spending some of my day off emailing every single senator with an NRA rating of B or higher to register my opposition. Here’s a page with direct links to their e-mail contact form if anyone wants to join in. (I recommend Google Chrome as it will autofill your contact info after the first one you do.)

    http://www.shotmonster.com/senators.html

  57. avatarVSN says:

    Is the text of the bill available for public viewing? I’m no law-talking-guy, but it would be nice to be able to take a peak at it.

  58. avatarDeeDeeMao says:

    This is so fouled up up that I’m thinking that it must not be any coincidence that Gottlieb is based in Bellevue Washington, a state that recently legalized marijuana.

    I can’t believe that a man with his background was so anxious to side with sell-outs like McCain and Graham and so eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Hasn’t Alan Gottlieb learned after all these years that compromising with Liberal Democrats is like handing a mugger your wallet and asking him to only take ten dollars?

    The “compromise” that he thought was so perfect would have given up far more than it would have got back, and I don’t feel that we’re out of danger yet with people like Gottlieb so eager to jump ship

  59. avatarRDNK says:

    No gun control bill ever introduced by liberals is a good thing for lawabidding gunowners,…ever !! UBC’s go to registation,and that goes to potential confiscation ! Don’t trust anything a liberal says unless you see it yourself !

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.